A&H

DOGSO in the first minute

The Referee Store
Not a great video to evaluate, but looks like a trip, and if it is a trip not much to debate about whether it is DOGSO. Time into the game is utterly irrelevant. The fact it was appealed is more surprising than that it was upheld.
 
Camera angle doesn’t help in real time. but looking at it slowed down the non/fouling defender is behind play and behind the foul. The referee’s position would enable him to see that. He’s unlikely to be able to cover, so if the attacker isn’t fouled he’s 1-on-1 with the goalkeeper. That’s a definite DOGSO.
 
I'm glad to see an FA actually backing up its referees. I'd like to think I'd say DOGSO here, but a lot would depend on my positioning. If I have neutral assistants, I'm probably going to talk with my AR if I don't have a good view of exactly where the other defender is in relation to the play.
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
Poor decision, distance from goal, absence of control, covering defender...
Click to expand...
Distance approx 10 yards from penalty area - how much closer do you want him?
Doesn't have to be fully in control, likelihood of regaining control is also a consideration, for me this is reasonably high.
There is a defender in fairly close proximity but the attacker is passed him if he isn't tripped so I think we have to say he is excluded from being able to make a fair challenge for the ball at the point of the foul
Direction is towards goal.
I can see why someone would take a safe approach here but for me it ticks the dogso boxes and a send off was correct
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't think this meets the "obvious" criteria because the other defender is keeping up with play and could challenge for the ball.
 
Mr Dean said:
Personally, I don't think this meets the "obvious" criteria because the other defender is keeping up with play and could challenge for the ball.
Click to expand...
The striker could blast the ball over. Put it wide. Keeper could make a save. These are all coulds' and perhaps'.
At the point the foul was made there is an obvious opportunity for a goal to be scored. There was not an obvious goal, but there was an obvious opportunity for a goal to be scored which is what we are looking for. This is more than a promising attack, the defender you refer to is behind play at the point of the foul and all the other criteria are easily met.
 
It's the proximity of the second defender that's the clincher for me. The other factors don't matter too much to me because I'm fancying that second defender would 'defend' this opportunity
Looking at it again, I can see why DOGSO is the majority opinion. I just fancy that Number 6 to play a big part
 
Not totally convinced it is a foul, thanks to distance and quality of the video. But once you give the foul, the DOGSO red card is 100% required at that point.
 
It's interesting, that because I played in Central Defence for two decades, I still see the game through defender's eyes. This perhaps makes me slightly more lenient with defenders, which naturally leads me towards 'safe refereeing'. In this scenario, if I'm the number 6, that's not a DOGSO!
That said, 'safe refereeing' is not all it's cracked up to be. If we fall into the trap of getting too safe, we'll end up repeatedly making bad decisions
 
It’s a tough one. Once you give the foul, it has to be a red card for me.
Below is a still image - from the other side of the pitch - at the point of contact. I personally don’t believe either defender would catch him.
CD946147-2AD2-4CD1-935B-B4E72D3318DF.png
 
Big Cat said:
It's interesting, that because I played in Central Defence for two decades, I still see the game through defender's eyes. This perhaps makes me slightly more lenient with defenders, which naturally leads me towards 'safe refereeing'. In this scenario, if I'm the number 6, that's not a DOGSO!
That said, 'safe refereeing' is not all it's cracked up to be. If we fall into the trap of getting too safe, we'll end up repeatedly making bad decisions
Click to expand...
I think you may also be looking at where that other defender is at the wrong moment. Once the attacker falls, it may seem the other defender has an opportunity. But before the attacker is slowed, its a 1 on 1 with the keeper without the foul. A defender chasing from behind doesn't obviate an OGSO.
 
That's a clear DOGSO. Central, running towards goal, very high likelihood of getting the ball if he wasn't fouled. Yes, there is a potential covering defender but I don't think he would be getting there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top